River of hydrogen flowing through space seen with Green Bank Telescope

This composite image contains three distinct features: the bright star-filled central region of galaxy NGC 6946 in optical light (blue), the dense hydrogen tracing out the galaxy's sweeping spiral arms and galactic halo (orange), and the extremely diffuse and extended field of hydrogen engulfing NGC 6946 and its companions (red). The new GBT data show the faintly glowing hydrogen bridging the gulf between the larger galaxy and its smaller companions. This faint structure is precisely what astronomers expect to appear as hydrogen flows from the intergalactic medium into galaxies or from a past encounter between galaxies. Credit: D.J. Pisano (WVU); B. Saxton (NRAO/AUI/NSF); Palomar Observatory -- Space Telescope Science Institute 2nd Digital Sky Survey (Caltech); Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope

(Phys.org) —Using the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT), astronomer D.J. Pisano from West Virginia University has discovered what could be a never-before-seen river of hydrogen flowing through space. This very faint, very tenuous filament of gas is streaming into the nearby galaxy NGC 6946 and may help explain how certain spiral galaxies keep up their steady pace of star formation.

"We knew that the fuel for star formation had to come from somewhere. So far, however, we've detected only about 10 percent of what would be necessary to explain what we observe in many galaxies," said Pisano. "A leading theory is that rivers of hydrogen – known as cold flows – may be ferrying hydrogen through intergalactic space, clandestinely fueling star formation. But this tenuous hydrogen has been simply too diffuse to detect, until now."

Spiral galaxies, like our own Milky Way, typically maintain a rather tranquil but steady pace of star formation. Others, like NGC 6946, which is located approximately 22 million light-years from Earth on the border of the constellations Cepheus and Cygnus, are much more active, though less-so than more extreme starburst galaxies. This raises the question of what is fueling the sustained star formation in this and similar spiral galaxies.

Earlier studies of the galactic neighborhood around NGC 6946 with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) in the Netherlands have revealed an extended halo of hydrogen (a feature commonly seen in spiral galaxies, which may be formed by hydrogen ejected from the disk of the galaxy by intense star formation and supernova explosions). A cold flow, however, would be hydrogen from a completely different source: gas from intergalactic space that has never been heated to extreme temperatures by a galaxy's star birth or supernova processes.

Using the GBT, Pisano was able to detect the glow emitted by neutral hydrogen gas connecting NGC 6946 with its cosmic neighbors. This signal was simply below the detection threshold of other telescopes. The GBT's unique capabilities, including its immense single dish, unblocked aperture, and location in the National Radio Quiet Zone, enabled it to detect this tenuous radio light.

Astronomers have long theorized that larger galaxies could receive a constant influx of cold hydrogen by syphoning it off other less-massive companions.

In looking at NGC 6946, the GBT detected just the sort of filamentary structure that would be present in a cold flow, though there is another probable explanation for what has been observed. It's also possible that sometime in the past this galaxy had a close encounter and passed by its neighbors, leaving a ribbon of neutral atomic hydrogen in its wake.

If that were the case, however, there should be a small but observable population of stars in the filaments. Further studies will help to confirm the nature of this observation and could shine light on the possible role that cold flows play in the evolution of galaxies.

Citation:
River of hydrogen flowing through space seen with Green Bank Telescope (2014, January 27)
retrieved 15 September 2019
from https://phys.org/news/2014-01-river-hydrogen-space-green-bank.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

It's going to be really upsetting for advocates of conventional theory when they actually take a thoughtful look at the linewidths of the 21-cm HI signal. This issue has not been covered especially well within the Astrophysical Journal. As Don Scott and Wal Thornhill have repeatedly warned, only readers of IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science will understand the laboratory plasma process of Marklund convection required to actually interpret Verschuur's observations.

And so, when readers of the Astrophysical Journal hear Verschuur talking about filaments of neutral HI hydrogen, there is a complete disconnect which has been created by this decision amongst astrophysicists to treat IEEE as an inferior journal.

The unfortunate fact is that when you decide to cultivate an ignorance of something, you don't actually get to know what it is you do not know. And so, what this necessarily leads to is incredulous surprise when the data & theory are presented in just the right way.

So, we have a situation right now where Verschuur's claims have not yet been properly explained to either the astrophysicists nor the public. It's a complex subject which takes some effort to convey, but once it is explained properly, the data is as clear as can be. And listen very carefully:

Critical ionization velocities are showing up VERY CLEARLY in the all-sky surveys. We see all four of the CIV's which one would expect to see for the universe's most common elements, but they only show up when the data is handled with care. Groups like the WMAP team who process these datasets using automated scripts cannot expect to do accurate Gaussian fitting when you have numerous emissions in the line of sight. The curves have to be fitted by hand, and it can take thousands of hours of careful work to get the 21-cm shifts into linewidth histograms that can be trusted.

Verschuur did much of this work before he even learned what a CIV was. And if you read his books, you will notice that he makes no claim about CIV's in his books. I've checked, and there's nothing there except for references to -- and a lot of curiosity about -- the anomalous high-velocity clouds.

The people who like to ridicule the Electric Universe would be wise to take a look at the typical linewidth histograms. Although the CIV's vary based upon where one looks in the sky, for most regions of the sky, there exist one or more identifiable CIV's. In many regions, we can see all 4 CIV bands at play.

Now, the astrophysicists have already pulled the statistics card on Verschuur's WMAP claim. But, they just skipped over these far more devastating CIV signals. And once they see somebody explain this properly, they are going to sh*t their pants.

It is possible to explain the CIV observation sufficient to make it go viral. It can literally spread to millions of people overnight.

Verschuur is at the center of a recent debate over the age of the universe.[10][11] He claims that images from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (Wmap) are not pictures of the universe in its early form, but rather hydrogen gas clouds in our own galaxy. If he is shown to be correct, much work relating to the Big Bang Theory would be undermined.On December 10, 2007 his work with respect to COBE, WMAP, and HI, was published in The Astrophysical Journal.[12] However, in a more systematic examination of the maps published that same year in The Physical Review, Land and Slosar [13] find the data do not support the correlation claimed by Verschuur.

Observing the inferred velocity of HI hydrogen center around known critical ionization velocities within the all-sky surveys of HI hydrogen is like noticing that the wind tends to blow at very particular speeds, regardless of where one looks. It's like suddenly noticing that huge percentages of the drivers on our highways are driving at 35 mph, regardless of the speed limit.

These observed CIV's are to the EU what the black body spectrum was to the big bang. But, honestly, this argument is far less speculative than that one was. That was basically a story which sounded believable, but which was ultimately premised on a history of the universe which was necessarily metaphysical.

In this instance, we are talking about known plasma physics processes which can actually be explained to the public step by step, without recourse to any complex mathematics.

There are good reasons why it's not been explained well so far, but these messaging problems are being figured out ...

You're still not even at the point of learning what this Marklund convection model is. You're not listening to what I'm saying here. You guys are over-committing your stance on topics that you actually know nothing about. I know that because it's actually quite difficult to track down information on how Marklund convection actually works. It took me quite a bit of investigation to figure this stuff out. You're making a call on what to believe without having done any of that difficult research.

These people you're pointing to are clearly going to defend the WMAP. But, I've seen Verschuur talk in depth about the nuances of processing the 21-cm linewidth histograms, and it's plain-as-day obvious that these researchers defending the WMAP data did not take care to fit the curves like Verschuur has.

What is coming is going to be very painful for a lot of people. I'm sorry, but this is how science works. Out with the old, and in with the new.

In this instance, we are talking about known plasma physics processes which can actually be explained to the public step by step, without recourse to any complex mathematics.

There are good reasons why it's not been explained well so far, but these messaging problems are being figured out

@HannesAlfvenif you are going to supply the explanationuse reputable sites and leave the EU links to the crackpotsEU sites are not reputable

if there is real science to what you are saying and your claims are supported, then there will be reputable link and references that you can use to support your claims and there will be no need to use EU linksthings like published peer reviewed papersstudies with experiments / empirical dataetc

This is not about trusting sources. This is about learning what the observation that has been made IS, and simply relating that to the model which is being used to explain it. It is a matter of PRESENTATION such that people are not having to track down information. When it is explained in the proper way -- most important claim first, with the data right there alongside the claim, and even with the debate included to several levels deep -- it does not matter WHERE it is published. People can be made to suddenly realize:

"Oh f*ck"

When paradigm change hits you, it can really be an extraordinary experience. When your rational mind cannot conceive of any way that the data can be explained in any other way, it's like being on a roller coaster.

Crafting that experience requires learning psychology and sociology. And since those two subjects are not subjects which tend to be interests of people who follow the EU, it has taken a very long time to get to this point.

actually, I AM listeningI just dont want you to use EU crackpot linksif it is valid science, it will have valid supporting evidence out there

It took me quite a bit of investigation to figure this stuff out. You're making a call on what to believe without having done any of that difficult research

not making a callI am trying to head off the EU crackpot sites

I'm sorry, but this is how science works. Out with the old, and in with the new.

understood, but science uses a methodand the EU sites tend to ignore valid science in order to make their claimslike cantdrive

just use real references and links and leave out the EU crackpot is ALL I am saying right nowif there is any validity to the claims, there will be reputable references you can use and NOT EU crackpot references

This is not about trusting sources.... -- it does not matter WHERE it is published

I disagreeI cannot trust a source that is promoting a crackpot hypothesisif it promotes one, it is likely to promote another less valid hypothesis

like I saidIF there is valid science behind your claims, there should be valid reputable studies that support itTHAT is ANOTHER way science works

When paradigm change hits you, it can really be an extraordinary experience. When your rational mind cannot conceive of any way that the data can be explained in any other way, it's like being on a roller coaster

I totally agree with that statementi've been there before

if you are going to make the connection and explain it, there MUST be valid, provable science behind it, otherwise it is just conjecture and not supportedand even the greatest explanation that has no empirical data is nothing more than just a guess

Re: "science uses a methodand the EU sites tend to ignore valid science in order to make their claimslike cantdrive"

Unfortunately, the method which got science to this point has involved ignoring IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. And that's a huge problem for astrophysicists who are trying to accurately model cosmic plasmas.

All of this business about deciding what journals to ignore is really indefensible. IEEE is one of the most respected journals in the history of mankind. They have had their hands in the most complex technologies which have evolved over the past few decades. Peratt was an advisor to the Department of Energy, where he -- presumably -- worked on nukes for the gov't. Astrophysical models are held to a completely different standard than these IEEE technologies: When they don't work, nothing actually happens other than the generation of new models.

People who don't see the difference are basically accepting other peoples' dogma.

@HannesAlfvenperhaps you misunderstandbecause I dont care one whit about other people's dogma'sI said that Electric Universe sites are crackpot sites as they are based upon unproven conjecture and invalid claims

about plasma physics, I have posted plasma physics links here in the pasttherefore there are reputable links out thereplasma physics is a specialized field of study in science and reputable, and has reputable links/reference sitestherefore if you are referencing plasma physics, there should be reputable links if it is based upon valid scienceif you have a valid study with empirical data then link it

just don't sink so low as to post the electric universe site as a valid reputable link because it is notIF there is valid science, even on the EU site, there should be studies posted elsewhere that are reputable that you can use to link to

Sub; Cosmic Plasmas drive down to Milky way NANDI introduces new concepts for flow-fields integration..author vidyardhi nanduri COSPAR 2013Plasma Regulated Electro-Magnetic phenomena under Magnetic Fields Environment holds the key for interpretation of data from space probes and Explorers.The author has been working in the field of Space plasmas integration to Human being Environment and Space-a natural philosohical link since 1984 and more specifically after 1991 IEEE -ICOPS group interaction that supportResearch efforts beyond Van-Allen Belts. Super-imposition of Visible -Invisile matrix mode over space based observations-author vidyardhi nanduri- COSPAR-2013 Conference-The Cosmological Index is a drive to Milky Way Sensitive Index and as such the Onset-mode must be viewed as a Curtain raiser to the present day concepts that provide confusion through Big-Bang, Singularity and other theories with limited perception of Science in Philosophy.http://vidyardhic...ion.html

Can you give a clear concise explanation of the "Electric Sun" theory. How EXACTLY does the sun get it's power from electrical properties? How well does this fit into nucleosynthesis? How well does it fit our theories of fusion in thermonuclear weapons and fusion reactors?

(cont) We all know our theories on nuclear weapons are sound...they work quite well. How did we get them to work with current models of fusion (which are the same ones that apply to the Sun) if they are so far off?

Forgive me if I'm being a bit obtuse, but it seems like you're saying our science regarding nuclear theory and gravity is wrong when we have practical technologies that do indeed work exactly as expected using both...

No fate is right. The earliest atomic bombs were terribly inefficient at initiating fission, and the vast majority of the "fuel" was released in the explosion without contributing to the energy of the explosion. The deuterium and tritium in an "H" bomb do technically fuse, but the desired result is not the release of energy, but the release of a neutron. These extra neutrons react with lithium to produce more neutrons and more tritium, or they induce fission in heavier nuclei (uranium, plutonium...). The result is simply more complete fission, and therefore a much bigger yield from the same amount of fissionable material. Most of you probably think the fission explosion is merely a fuse to light off a bigger fusion explosion, but that's not how it works.

The other basic type of nuclear weapon produces a large proportion of its energy in nuclear fusion reactions. Such fusion weapons are generally referred to as thermonuclear weapons or more colloquially as hydrogen bombs (abbreviated as H-bombs), as they rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). All such weapons derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from fission.

Captain Stumpy: Supporting somthing just because the reigning authority says to is anti-american. Supporting it because it works makes sense.

I support good science, and I support science that works.

Linking to crackpot pseudoscience sites only shows that there is no science to support said theorybecause if there was legitimate science, there would be legitimate studies authored and peer reviewed out there for them to link to

I am not condemning their point of view, just saying to post legitimate science with legitimate studies that are peer reviewed and can stand up to scrutiny, otherwise, it is a waste of time

@no fate & baraknyour posts re: fusion showed up after i posted. sorry about adding the fusion post as you are correct about the fusion/fission in weapons

Modernmystic: Nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants work because of fission...not fusion. The only simlarity is the involvement of atoms. The theory of Hydrogen fusion at the core of the sun as the driver of it's energy production is not at all similar to the P-P chain reaction when a nuclear bomb is detonated.

Barakn, your description of the H-bomb explosion is correct. That is not what No fate stated. He stated is was NOT FUSION. Actually the H-bomb is chemical, fission fusion bomb. Secondly he stated the sun's fusion process "is not at all similar to the P-P chain reaction when a nuclear bomb is detonated." It seems to me he has this stated backwards also, the sun uses a P-P chain fusion the H-bomb does not.

No fate also implies that little energy comes from the fusion process in an H-bomb explosion. That is not what Wiki stated, it states: "All such weapons derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from fission."

No fate is right. The earliest atomic bombs were terribly inefficient at initiating fission, and the vast majority of the "fuel" was released in the explosion without contributing to the energy of the explosion. The deuterium and tritium in an "H" bomb do technically fuse, but the desired result is not the release of energy, but the release of a neutron. These extra neutrons react with lithium to produce more neutrons and more tritium, or they induce fission in heavier nuclei (uranium, plutonium...). The result is simply more complete fission, and therefore a much bigger yield from the same amount of fissionable material. Most of you probably think the fission explosion is merely a fuse to light off a bigger fusion explosion, but that's not how it works.

Excellent description, barakn. I just hope no terrorists read it, cuz it gave a lot of info...

Modernmystic: Nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants work because of fission...not fusion. The only simlarity is the involvement of atoms. The theory of Hydrogen fusion at the core of the sun as the driver of it's energy production is not at all similar to the P-P chain reaction when a nuclear bomb is detonated.

Wrong! It is exactly the P-P chain, based on very specific measurements of luminosity, neutrino flux, temperature and helioseismology.

Captain Stumpy: Supporting somthing just because the reigning authority says to is anti-american. Supporting it because it works makes sense.

You are correct in that a fusion reaction is produced in an H-bomb, but that reaction isn't the energy release we see, the EMP, column of fire and mushroom cloud are all fission at it's finest.

What are you talking about! Absolutely dead wrong! Do you understand the difference between fusion and fission? Fusion is the forcing together, fission is the splitting apart. An atomic bomb uses explosives to create the temperature and pressure needed to invoke fission in a small lump of matter, which release incredible amounts of energy. A hydrogen bomb uses fission to create the energy needed to invoke fusion in the hydrogen placed in the housing of the h-bomb. This is the same process that occurs in the core of the sun due to the pressure and temperature of compressed (almost entirely) hydrogen.

No fate is right. The earliest atomic bombs were terribly inefficient at initiating fission, and the vast majority of the "fuel" was released in the explosion without contributing to the energy of the explosion. The deuterium and tritium in an "H" bomb do technically fuse, but the desired result is not the release of energy, but the release of a neutron. These extra neutrons react with lithium to produce more neutrons and more tritium, or they induce fission in heavier nuclei (uranium, plutonium...). The result is simply more complete fission, and therefore a much bigger yield from the same amount of fissionable material. Most of you probably think the fission explosion is merely a fuse to light off a bigger fusion explosion, but that's not how it works.

No barakn, you have that wrong. The early nuclear bombs created energy via fission alone. The explosives used to surround the uranium core were configured to direct heat and pressure into the core, initiating ..cont..

..cont.. initiating fission; the release of a neutron, which impacts another atom, causing it to immediately split, releasing two neutrons + energy. These two each impact more atoms, creating a chain reaction and viola, boom. A hydrogen bomb depends on fusion, which is invoked when the temperature and pressure of the fission reaction induced through chemical explosives causes the hydrogen contained in the bomb to fuse. A hydrogen bomb can misfire (and often did at first) and still create a gigantic explosion because the fission reaction occurs but does not induce fusion in the hydrogen.

Well damn. Ok, I am wrong, barakn especially is right and no fate is right in saying the fission reaction creates the observable effects. The fusion reaction is indeed used to cause a more efficient fission reaction, so my humble apologies.

People like our HannesAlfven claim that Verschuur has a good idea and that the only thing holding him back is a conspiracy. They claim that if mainstream science would take a serious look, Verschuur would be proven correct.

The problem with that is that mainstream science actually did take a serious look at his work, since it did present a plausible scenario. See, that's how good science works; If someone suggests a problem with your work, you go and do the work needed to test their suggestion. So, that's actually what happened. People actually did go back and double-check the WMAP observations, to make sure Verschuur wasn't right. They were not able to reproduce Verschuur's results. Sorry, that's game over. Verschuur is doing the same thing as ghost hunters who find signals in static that sound like voices. You can 'find' just about any signal you want in random noise, but that doesn't make it real.

Firstly, correlations will inevitably appear from random fluctuations and one must not usea-posteriori statistics to claim detections. Even if one is forced to do so, the required significance bar should be significantly higher than in the case of expected results.Secondly, correlations by eye are very misleading and quantitative methods must be employed. Today's Monte-Carlo methods allow for easy assessment of significance.We tested for correlation between the third-year WMAP CMB maps and LAB data of Galactic Hi. We considered three different masks, CMB frequency bands, angular scales and 89 different Hi velocity slices. We do not find any convincing evidence for a correlation. Thelack of correlation demonstrates how impressively clean the WMAP CMB maps are, outside of the masked regions.

See cantdrive, that's how science actually works. Gswft7 correctly describes the process, and now you have actually been a part of it while it was happening.

One difference between the pseudo-scince that is EU and real science is that EU looks for evidence of phenomena that supports their pre-conceived notions of how it should be, whereas science looks at phenomena and askes "how could this be".

A few minutes checking on Vershuur's claims revealed the claims had been looked at and found to be wanting. That "checking" thing candrive? That's called "critical thinking" and that is the thing you do not do, and that is also the thing that allows pseudoscientific fringe theory like EU to persist in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that it is hogwash. The EU gurus' life blood is making sciency sounding claims and then depending on people who will take the claims at face value without checking on them.

E-mail the story

River of hydrogen flowing through space seen with Green Bank Telescope

Note

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose.
The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Your message

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.